[GS] Disable GDR

[Aristos]

You have seen Pacific Rim, right? Certainly wasn't around (or even something I'd watch) when I was three

And the point is...?

I'd rather be able to disable the global warming. That sounds way more annoying.

We are already in the realms of pseudo-science anyways, so... "que le hace una mancha mas al tigre?" (what does one more spot do to the tiger's pelt?)

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Thread is about GDR, not global warming. Let us not proceed down that path.

 

[Aristos]

@leif erikson made me think of something that closely relates both the unit (GDR) and the mechanism of GW in GS... if a mega structure like that would really exist, it would have an immense carbon footprint. Not only in running it (lots of energy that has to come from some source with high energy density), or making it jump over mountains (how much energy for that?) but also huge amounts of energy during the fabrication process... shouldn't GS incorporate this "reality" to be consistent? Yes, I know, it may come too late to have a final impact on GW, but maybe not...

The more I think of it, the more it clicks. Incorporating the externalities of such a structure into the gameplay would solve the very issue proposed in this thread... the GDR, as ridiculous as it may be as a unit, should be extremely costly, in terms of production (modeled in civ 6), resources (also modeled), and energy (modeled in GS). That way, only the most productive, and "environmentally reckless" civilizations would be able to build it.

There should also be a WC resolution to ban the things for "environmental reasons".

 

[The googles do nothing]

The US has built the stealth bomber, Zumwalt class ship, and has a “Star Wars” missile defense. What do the have in common? There purpose was to prevent atomic/nuclear attacks. A giant robot with a giant price tag seems to me to be in keeping with those weapons if A president is persuasive enough to get the money.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

In my head, Giant Death Robot from Civ5 is... yes, an absurdity. But it also comes at the absolute end of the tech tree, in a place where you might not even see it by the time of a Science victory. So in practice, GDRs are not really in the game, and if you see them it's kind of like the game makin' fun of you for being so inefficient.

But the GS Death Robots are in a future era, and we've been told the science victory is. . . changing. Will it extend into the future era? So will the Death Robots really get built?

Then they're an equivalent part of history. And that makes me mad.

 

[LethalLeigh]

I can understand not wanting to play with a certain fetcher. I hate playing with Nukes on but have not found a Mod to disable them. it ruins the game for me when all the AI does at end game is fire off nukes
So wanting to turn off the GDR is similar. But I am looking forward to this myself hopfully the AI will build a couple and we can have our own Pac Rim show down

 

[Greasy Dave]

@leif erikson made me think of something that closely relates both the unit (GDR) and the mechanism of GW in GS... if a mega structure like that would really exist, it would have an immense carbon footprint. Not only in running it (lots of energy that has to come from some source with high energy density), or making it jump over mountains (how much energy for that?) but also huge amounts of energy during the fabrication process... shouldn't GS incorporate this "reality" to be consistent? Yes, I know, it may come too late to have a final impact on GW, but maybe not...

The more I think of it, the more it clicks. Incorporating the externalities of such a structure into the gameplay would solve the very issue proposed in this thread... the GDR, as ridiculous as it may be as a unit, should be extremely costly, in terms of production (modeled in civ 6), resources (also modeled), and energy (modeled in GS). That way, only the most productive, and "environmentally reckless" civilizations would be able to build it.

There should also be a WC resolution to ban the things for "environmental reasons".

This is bang on the money. My problem with the GDR is consistency. It breaks the game's internal consistency. You can't create a set of internal rules for a game - like climate change for instance - and then let a feature break those rules so obviously. A game should be consistent throughout. I think when folks in this thread are complaining about it not being realistic or connected to reality, what they mean is, it's inconsistent. At least for me, it is. I like sci-fi. But not this kind in this game. The whole of the game respects Newtonian physics - it couldn't do otherwise. The GDR? Jumping over a mountain? Seriously? Come on. I mean I can ignore the fact that its bipedal and wholly unstable because the game designers think this is fun (!) but when I saw it mountain leap something inside me died.

 

[Ondolindë]

This might be a silly question at this point, but how do we know they jump over mountains? I don’t remember being said nor shown, but I do remember the unit itself came up.

 

[pgm123]

This might be a silly question at this point, but how do we know they jump over mountains? I don’t remember being said nor shown, but I do remember the unit itself came up.

It was said. I can't remember if it was shown (I think it was). If I remember correctly, it functions like a tunnel.

 

[Gorbles]

And the point is...?

Oh, that's how I relate to a giant jumping robot without reverting to the mental age of a child. Whether or not you think they're realistic, they're a tried-and-tested part of science fiction (and fantasy, sure) regardless of their real-world practicalities (I believe quadrupeds are more, in terms of physics, realistic, than bipeds? That's the last I read on the subject anyhow, a couple of years back).

Now, do we need science-fiction in Civilisation? I don't know, that's a fun argument to explore though. I'd say considering the Alpha Centauri aims of most of the Science Victories (or indeed victories, if we go all the way back to Civ 1), the franchise supports science-fiction, at least, near-future science-fiction, and always has done.

 

[Vandlys]

This might be a silly question at this point, but how do we know they jump over mountains? I don’t remember being said nor shown, but I do remember the unit itself came up.

It jumped from the Hungarian border, over mountains, to the polish border. It was during the second livestream where they showed Hungary. I think it was the Inca livestream, but I'm not sure.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

@leif erikson made me think of something that closely relates both the unit (GDR) and the mechanism of GW in GS... if a mega structure like that would really exist, it would have an immense carbon footprint. Not only in running it (lots of energy that has to come from some source with high energy density), or making it jump over mountains (how much energy for that?) but also huge amounts of energy during the fabrication process... shouldn't GS incorporate this "reality" to be consistent? Yes, I know, it may come too late to have a final impact on GW, but maybe not...

The more I think of it, the more it clicks. Incorporating the externalities of such a structure into the gameplay would solve the very issue proposed in this thread... the GDR, as ridiculous as it may be as a unit, should be extremely costly, in terms of production (modeled in civ 6), resources (also modeled), and energy (modeled in GS). That way, only the most productive, and "environmentally reckless" civilizations would be able to build it.

There should also be a WC resolution to ban the things for "environmental reasons".

Not necessarily. That would take the assumption that producing a square foot of processed material produces the exact same carbon footprint of a square foot of processed material 100 years ago. As the production process evolves the carbon output does as well. And most of that was done without the dedicated intent to reduce those outputs. As the production process continues to evolve, especially with a more environmentally friendly mandate, all processed goods will have a diminishing impact. Of course none of that is set in stone, but there is some possibility for it.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Not necessarily. That would take the assumption that producing a square foot of processed material produces the exact same carbon footprint of a square foot of processed material 100 years ago. As the production process evolves the carbon output does as well. And most of that was done without the dedicated intent to reduce those outputs. As the production process continues to evolve, especially with a more environmentally friendly mandate, all processed goods will have a diminishing impact. Of course none of that is set in stone, but there is some possibility for it.

And don't forget, any attempt to predict future trends in pollution, carbon production, et al are almost certainly worthless because we have a very bad record for predicting the impact and 'side effects' of new technology. Classic examples:
In 1900 the biggest pollution problem in American cities was Horse Manure, deposited by the thousands of tons in the streets every year. In 1920, that problem had disappeared, along with most of the horses, replaced by the automobile and delivery truck - which brought a whole new set of problems, but solved the old one.
The advent of the automobile brought vastly increased personal mobility, which was sort of predicted, but no one predicted that it would also bring about a massive increase in the independence and change in the mating habits of teenagers once they got their hands on automobiles. The results of that 'culture shift' are still on-going.
A simple ram-jet reconnaissance 'drone' from late Vietnam War (1970) dropped onto a US Army Airfield in 1938 would be a collection of utterly incomprehensible technology: the ramjet only works if it is ignited after the craft is going 500 miles an hour, and nothing in the world can reach that speed in 1938! The camera and transmitters are all solid-state and so have almost no components that even resemble 'state of the art' of 1938. Even the alloy that the craft is made of is a form of titanium/steel/aluminum that cannot be reproduced yet.
Only the insignia, which looks like a modification of the 1938 USAF star, might be recognizable.
In other words, 30 years from now our problems are likely to be utterly unpredictable from where we now stand, and the solutions to our present problems will likely be utterly different from what we are contemplating now

 

[CornPlanter]

I agree completely. GDR is an immersion breaking silly unit from a different genre. It's not a "future unit". Drones controlled by AI are future units. GDR a silly unit from certain SF genres.

 

[ChocolateShake]

Now, do we need science-fiction in Civilisation? I don't know, that's a fun argument to explore though. I'd say considering the Alpha Centauri aims of most of the Science Victories (or indeed victories, if we go all the way back to Civ 1), the franchise supports science-fiction, at least, near-future science-fiction, and always has done.

To me, the important thing for civ is to always have a historical, real-world flavor to it. If it ventures a bit too far into sci-fi and fantasy, there's a risk it'll start to alienate players who enjoy its historical basis. Yup it's not a history simulator but it's of course based on history. Civ is in a category on its own really as a 4x focused purely on history from the stone age to the modern era. If I had to think of another game like it the only one that matches that is Rise of Nations, and the future era there didn't involve robots. Empire Earth I think is another similar game, I believe it did include some robots towards the end.

Alpha Centauri has always been a part of civ, but it felt more natural, an end-goal to achieve that sort of tied the theme of progress and a hope for a better future.

I'd enjoy the GDR more if it looked like a sort of walking M1 Abrams or other modern tank, but of course that's a stylistic preference - the current style, and the jumping, would work great in a sci-fi 4x universe. It'll be fun to use in any case, and I'm guessing lots of player will like it. As long as the GDR doesn't take on a prominent role I think it's alright - to me it's all going to depend on just how big of a role it has in the future era.

 

[Gorbles]

@ChocolateShake

I stick on Alpha Centauri because it's "realistically" unrealistic. Not Mars, or Titan, a star system we literally have zero possible way of getting to with our current technology.

This is the limit of reason I apply to any successor game. A single futuristic unit (that fits mainly within the defined Civilisation scope of warfare, and has precedent in a previous Civ. game) is fair game to me for the franchise, and I think objections are far more personal than "it'll alienate players", plural. I mean sure, perhaps, more than one player. But overall? If the GDR is the thing that gets you to stop playing, then there's already a lot of other issues for you in the game itself. And again - that's fine Nothing wrong with your personal preference. Alternatively like in your case if you like it, and are just concerned with the direction, then sure!

 

[Pistol90]

Since there is 6 pages with different opinions I added poll about GDR so we can see what majority really think. Now (before GS launch) and later (after lets say a Month of playing) with new poll maybe

 

[RohirrimElf]

The issue i have with the giant death robot is that it should be placed later in the tech tree. And i would rather see other military units that are realistic for next 50 years as unit upgrades.
(So no terminators, but unmanned aircrafts, automatic defence systems placed in cities, Advanced Air drones, And unmanned ground units with weapon systems)

 

[ChocolateShake]

@Gorbles: I agree with you that the GDR on its own shouldn't be enough to drive someone away from the game. I remember in one of my Civ5 games I built a GDR, and I had a ton of fun with it.

Thinking about it, the GDR could certainly have a great place in the series as the pinnacle unit of the future era as you said. I think it'll all come down to just when it shows up and just how central it is to the future era. I'd prefer it to be alongside other units based on the latest tech.

 

[Jaybe]

Just as I rarely built GDRs in civ5, I forecast the same in VI. Unless the AI effectively use them against me of course.
Likely useless to me.
A pretty piece of fluff for FXS to spend resources on??